Supreme Court Affirms High Standard of Proving Patents Invalid

Today the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Circuit's rule that, in litigation, a patent may only be proved invalid by clear and convincing evidence. EFF filed an amicus brief in the case – Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership – supporting Microsoft's request that the standard for proving invalidity merely be by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) rather than clear and convincing evidence (a high probability).

Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion rejecting Microsoft's request, which six Justices joined (Chief Justice Roberts was recused). Essentially, the Court declined to reach the policy considerations in favor of a lower standard of proof that EFF and other amici had argued – that the lower standard would make it easier to invalidate bad patents – and instead agreed with i4i that the caselaw established a common law rule of clear and convincing evidence, which 35 U.S.C. §282 codified in 1952.

For the reasons explained fully in EFF's brief (see pages 30-32), we disagree with the Court's analysis of the early cases (specifically, the RCA case). We argued that those earlier cases did not establish a clear and convincing standard in all circumstances, but only when a defendant tries to relitigate a patent's validity using evidence that was already unsuccessfully used in an earlier case. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not agree.

The Court also declined to adopt a higher standard of proof in the more narrow circumstance where the evidence before the jury was not before the Patent Office. However, in those situations, the Court said that a jury instruction might be appropriate:

Simply put, if the PTO did not have all material facts before it, its considered judgment may lose significant force. Cf. KSR, 550 U. S., at 427. And, concomitantly, the challenger’s burden to persuade the jury of its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence may be easier to sustain. In this respect, although we have no occasion to endorse any particular formulation, we note that a jury instruction on the effect of new evidence can, and when requested, most often should be given.

Microsoft did not ask for such an instruction in this case, so there was nothing to remand. Yet this language is perhaps the best piece of news in the opinion. In a previous case where Microsoft did request such an instruction and the district court refused to give it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal to give the instruction – something that is probably now incorrect.

While today's decision is disappointing, EFF will continue in its efforts to level the playing field in patent litigation.

The exclusive rights granted by a U.S. patent create monopolies that can threaten innovation. We all benefit from the pro-innovation effects that come from cancelling monopolies that should not exist. That’s why the 2012 America Invents Act broadly allows “[a]ny person other than the patent owner” to challenge a...

At EFF, we review court dockets to monitor the conduct of the most active patent trolls. But when court records are redacted or sealed, it can be impossible for EFF and other members of the public to know what is going on. Today we filed a motion to intervene...

In 2018, technologists and users continued to be plagued by abstract, ridiculous software patents. The good news is there are more ways than ever before to fight back against those patents—some of them pretty effective. Unfortunately, patent trolls and abusive patent owners are working overtime to knock down those recent...

When is software free? Is it enough that the software be licensed under a free or open license? What about patents? Software as a service? Trade secrets? What about DRM? Is software ever free? There's a saying in the software freedom movement: "if you can't open it, it's not yours....

In some fields, software bugs are more than the proverbial pain in the neck. When software has to ensure that an airplane lands safely, or that a pacemaker keeps operating, there’s no room for error. The idea that mathematical proofs could be used to prove that software is error-free has...

This year, we celebrated the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank. Alice made clear that generic computers do not make abstract ideas eligible for patent protection. Following the decision, district courts across the country started rejecting ineligible abstract patents at early...

One of the nation’s most prolific patent trolls is finally dead. After more than a decade of litigation and more than 500 patent suits, Shipping & Transit LLC (formerly known as Arrivalstar) has filed for bankruptcy. As part of its bankruptcy filing [PDF], Shipping & Transit was required...

Patent trolls know that it costs a lot of money to defend a patent case. The high cost of defensive litigation means that defendants are pressured to settle even if the patent is invalid. Fee awards can change this calculus and give defendants a chance to fight back against weak...

In a victory for transparency, the Federal Circuit has changed its policies to give the public immediate access to briefs. Previously, the court had marked submitted briefs as “tendered” and withheld them from the public pending review by the Clerk’s Office. That process sometimes took a number of days...